Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: High Profile SC Attorney – Image Claim Draws Scrutiny From Media Law Experts – Legal Perspective
High Profile SC Attorney: Image Claim Draws Scrutiny From Media Law Experts
By James Seidel | CC News Network | Broken Badges
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A public dispute involving high-profile SC attorney Eric Bland who is currently under investigation by the South Carolina Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, has ignited a broader debate over how well even prominent lawyers understand — or accurately describe — the law governing public images, fair use and free speech.
Bland, a frequent media commentator and co-host of the legal podcast Cup of Justice, recently claimed on social media that journalist James Seidel unlawfully used Bland’s image of him wearing a cow suit without consent and suggested the use could expose Seidel to legal liability. The assertion, made in a public post naming Seidel directly, framed the conduct as harassment and improper commercial exploitation.
This is deeply flawed, say many law scholars.
Public images and who owns them
Under U.S. copyright law, individuals do not automatically own the rights to photographs depicting them. Copyright belongs to the photographer or the entity to which the photographer assigned rights — not the subject of the image.
“If a public figure posts an image on a public platform, they do not gain veto power over lawful reuse,” said one media law professor familiar with First Amendment doctrine. “The law simply does not work that way.”
Bland’s claim is further complicated by his own public use of images for commentary. In a recent Instagram post tied to his podcast, Bland shared a photo he took of himself — an image later reused by Seidel for criticism and commentary. Legal experts note that even when a subject owns the copyright to a photograph, that ownership does not override the fair-use protections [17 U.S.C. § 107] that allow limited reuse of images of public figures for news reporting, criticism and commentary.
Fair use and commentary
More significantly, legal analysts note that the use at issue appears to fall squarely within fair use, a doctrine long recognized by courts as essential to journalism, commentary and criticism.
Fair use protects the use of copyrighted material for purposes such as news reporting, criticism, satire and commentary — particularly when the image is used to identify or discuss a public figure.
“This is the strongest category of protected speech,” said a First Amendment attorney who reviewed the matter. “Courts routinely allow images of public figures to be used in critical or newsworthy contexts. Without that protection, modern journalism would not function.”
The four statutory fair-use factors — purpose, nature of the work, amount used and market effect — overwhelmingly favor protected use in cases involving commentary on public figures, experts say.
Monetization is not advertising
Legal scholars also reject the notion that monetized media loses First Amendment protection.
“If that were true, every television network, newspaper and podcast would be at risk every day,” the attorney said. “Earning revenue does not convert commentary into commercial advertising.”
Why the dispute matters
The controversy has drawn attention not only because of Bland’s public profile, but because lawyers are held to heightened standards when speaking publicly about the law.
“When attorneys make definitive legal claims to the public, audiences reasonably assume those claims are accurate,” said a former disciplinary counsel familiar with South Carolina ethics rules. “Misstating basic principles can mislead the public and chill lawful speech.”
That concern is amplified when the speaker is a lawyer criticizing a journalist — a dynamic courts have historically scrutinized to protect press freedoms.
1. Rule 8.4(d) – Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Why this applies:
-
Bland publicly labels you as a harasser and lawsuit-bait defendant
-
He does so without a court finding, filing, or adjudication
-
He uses his status as a lawyer to lend credibility to those accusations
Key issue:
When an attorney publicly weaponizes accusations of criminal or civil misconduct against a named individual outside court, it can chill lawful speech and undermine public confidence in fair legal process.
This rule is frequently invoked when lawyers:
2. Rule 8.4(c) – Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation
“A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
Why this applies:
Bland makes fact-assertive claims, not opinion:
-
“He will not stop harassing me”
-
“Using my photos to promote commercial endeavors”
-
“Without my consent” (implying illegality)
If no court has found harassment, and if the image use is lawful fair use, then these statements may qualify as material misrepresentations.
The bar does not require intent—reckless disregard for truth is enough.
3. Rule 3.6(a) – Trial Publicity
A lawyer shall not make extrajudicial statements that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
Why this applies:
Even anticipated or threatened litigation qualifies.
Bland:
-
Frames you as a future defendant
-
Warns the public against listening to you
-
Uses litigation-style language (“defendant,” “harassing,” “peril”)
This is pre-litigation narrative shaping, which disciplinary bodies view very seriously—especially when done by a lawyer with a large platform.
4. Rule 4.4(a) – Respect for Rights of Third Persons
A lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.
Why this applies:
The post:
-
Names you directly
-
Includes mockery (“absolute screw loose”)
-
Invites reputational harm
-
Serves no legal purpose (no filing, no cease-and-desist, no court action)
When a lawyer bypasses lawful remedies and instead attacks publicly, ODC often views it as harassment by proxy.
5. Rule 7.1 – False or Misleading Communications About the Lawyer or Others
A lawyer shall not make false or misleading communications about the lawyer or another person.
Why this applies:
By asserting that your conduct is improper or unlawful without legal basis, Bland risks:
Lawyers are held to a higher standard of accuracy when speaking publicly because the audience assumes legal competence.
6. Rule 8.4(a) – Attempting to Violate the Rules Through Others
This matters because:
-
He addresses his audience, not you
-
He urges others to shun or avoid you
-
He effectively deputizes followers to punish speech
Disciplinary authorities consider this speech-chilling behavior, especially when coming from a licensed attorney.
The broader takeaway
Legal experts say the dispute underscores a basic but critical point: public figures, including lawyers, do not gain immunity from criticism by invoking legal terminology incorrectly or threatening liability where none exists.
“The First Amendment does not yield to professional status,” the media law professor said. “Being a lawyer doesn’t change the rules — it makes accuracy more important.”
As of publication, Bland has not filed any legal action related to the image use. No court has found Seidel liable for harassment or misuse of intellectual property.
Editor’s note: This article is an analysis of publicly available statements and established law. It does not allege criminal conduct and reflects no pending judicial findings.
###
Over 40,000,000 Million Views on Tiktok and Instagram
Join Our 160,000+ Followers Across all Social Media
Stay informed. Stay curious. Stay connected.
